Experiences you have had with a situation like this would be greatly appreciated, or comments as to why this won't work, as well. would be very much appreciated.
Thanks in Advance
MC
P.S. The way I envision it is sorta like a "Testing you for something Greater" feel. My closest example might be the way Luke Skywalker has to enter the Dark Side Cave before he can finish his training (facing his fears). Only my dungeon will be more about a mysterious dream that the PC's are charged with finding the meaning of.
Make sure your skill challanges are varied. Make sure that every player has something to bring to the table. The rouge or wizard could contribute to many challanges, while the fighter doesn't have much to offer. Keep that in mmind.
Hope this helps
Fighters and the like could also be just as involved with logic puzzles or ornate traps that require more than a Disable Device check to deactivate.
In the 90s I played computer games where most of what you needed to do was solve a puzzle. A few of them were fun, but most were not. What made most of them unenjoyable was trying to get into the game developer's mind as to what s/he was trying to do. Quickly you'd go from playing the game to solving the puzzle, sometimes to no avail. Suddenly you find you couldn't care less about the game. What fun is that?
If you stick to D&D type ideas, you should be fine. Once. :D
If you're not running combats, you have to ask: why are you running 4th Edition?
I love 4th Edition, I love Forgotten Realms, unfortunately 4th Edition Forgotten Realms took out my most beloved Goddess. So in a fit of rage(?) or may stalker type love I want her brought back. So I am going to call upon 4 heroes to help restore her essence, and return her to her rightful throne.
My problem was how do I know whether the 4 heroes are going to be clever enough to succeed in this task, which will certainly take more than brawnz to complete? The answer was a dungeon that tests the characters in every way, other than combat, the enemies that will arise to try and stop the restoration of the goddess will provide test enough for the heroes steel.
So that's what I intend to do, I am just not sure how to test them enough to make sure they are worthy, so this is where the next question lies:
What sort of skill challenges, traps, environmental hazards, ect. Should I throw at them to see if they are ready to face the road ahead, or at least provide them with a bit of foreshadowing as to what dangers may lie along their treacherous path?
Thanks in Advance
Save or Die type of traps suck, though. Also traps/puzzles that act as single points of failure. Instead of Pass or Fail, they should act as Easy Way or Hard Way. E.g. If the party cannot solve the riddle of the sphinx, the party must instead overcome three difficult challenges: one of strength, one of speed, and one of endurance.
4e does extremely well at non-combat, unless some people need 'rules' on how to use their imagination.
You have a great concept I say go for it. Pacing will be the key to it.
I had done something similar, where the group wnet through this room full of mirrors, which 'cloned' them, after that every 'situation' that came up afterwards they had to roll to see which 'persona' was there(the clones were complete opposites of the actual players) It was immense fun for everyone.
I do pose one thought though. Surely the road to restoring your favored goddess (who I assume is Mystara) they will be met with great resistance, they will be drawn into physical conflict at some point.
So testing a group of heroes' combat prowess is as important as testing everything else about them. So perhaps you should inject a small bit of combat into the adventure to test them in that area as well? I think the constructs idea was an excellent one.
All in all, I think you have an excellent concept for a dungeon. It is just going to take a lot of work to make sure it works for the whole party.
4e does extremely well at non-combat, unless some people need 'rules' on how to use their imagination.
No, no. Individual 4th Edition DMs can do well at non-combat. They do it without any mechanical support of the system. To say that D&D isn't mechanically deficient at non-combat is to be profoundly ignorant of the rest of the marketplace.
The analogy is a group of online gamers, and they've got in front of them MapTool, one or both of the Neverwinter Nights games, and Halo. And they're talking about which one is good for roleplaying. And there's a guy there who plays Halo, who's telling them how he and his guys get together in a Halo Capture the Flag game, but they don't capture the flag, they're really going for a capture-the-flag-lite game, and they have a blast roleplaying and doing stuff other than shooting each other and capturing the flag, because they don't need rules for their imagination.
That Halo guy is right, he doesn't need rules, and he and his friends are probably having a bunch of fun. It doesn't change the fact that the correct response to the question, "Which of these three pieces of software will be best for roleplaying in?" is "Ignore the Halo guy, use MapTool or Neverwinter Nights."
The D&D player arguing that their system is competent at non-combat gaming is the Halo guy. He's passionate, he's creative, he's thinking outside the box and he's having a blast. But he's still doing things the hard way; it's not what D&D is good at and if he's not getting his money's worth out of the excellent combat rules then he'd probably find what he's doing much easier under another system.
Glad you've got that skill, but a better one would have been telling me what was wrong with mine.
It made no sense?
ShowYou've fallen into the trap of taking things out of context. If you'd read the blog (particularly its first post) instead of just seizing on the front page for stuff that supports your argument, you'd see that Eleven Foot Pole is an analysis of the H series modules as-written. I fully support people modifying them, expanding them, or ignoring them altogether, but if you're playing with the printed text - which is, after all, the product you've paid for - there's a number of problems.
I'm not picking a product and then finding fault with it; I've deliberately chosen products that have a lot of problems, and am then explaining why they're problems, and inviting competing arguments in the comments thread. When there's good game design (as there was... oh, about four posts prior to the one you chose) I'm nothing less than glowing in my description of it.
For example, if I was talking about the "X Power" supplements, I'd say they were wonderful books; they're one of the best examples of a player-side supplement I've seen in any RPG and I have nothing but praise for them. That wouldn't be an interesting blog, though, and I'll happily plead guilty to choosing a topic that's both entertaining and interesting over one that isn't. Wizards are more than capable of advertising their own products; it's the criticism that needs to be outsourced to a third-party.
Pro tip for winning future arguments: quote from stuff you've previously read that forms the basis of your opinion. Don't form an opinion and then go looking for text that supports it.
It made no sense?
Read it again. Take it slowly and sound out the letters. "H" makes a "hu" noise, like in "horses".
I didn't fall into any trap. I do not need to cherry pick any post or section. It is not the modules fault that you refuse to add the "extra" bits of the module for your group to interact with. Then again why would you when D&D is nothing but "story-based board game."
You came into the game with blinders on what D&D is and refuse to see it in any other light.
The assumptions I make on Eleven Foot Pole have very little to do with the way I run my group; that particular party are now doing a very heavily modified Pyramid of Shadows focused largely on character stories and backgrounds; I run another group that's pure hack and slash, and I'm a player in a third game that's almost entirely RP.
Eleven Foot Pole comes from the point of view that a module costs you money, and for that money one is entitled to expect a top-notch product that presents a coherent story, balanced encounters, and a lot of inspiration for GMs. The H-series modules don't meet that standard, and while I'm quite happy to concede that you can work them over in a number of ways to fix them, it's worth stopping to look at why they're so bad in the first place, how the module writers fell into the traps they obviously have, and how Wizards let such sub-par product get through an ostensibly rigorous QA process.
The point is to learn from the mistakes.
All I need to say:
In the mean time I've been playing a lot of other systems that have been really exploring what it means to be a "roleplaying game"; now that I'm back in D&D, I'm amused to find that Wizards of the Coast have jettisoned most of the roleplaying in favour of a really quite excellent story-based board game.
I don't hold 4th Edition up as an example of what to strive for in an RPG; in fact in many ways it's the antithesis of roleplaying, although it's nevertheless still a heap of fun.
QFT. I stand by that. 4E is a great game; it's a terrible roleplaying game.
Isn't your disparaging of D&D nothing but semantics?
Gone to great lengths, many times, to say I'm not disparaging 4E. I love 4E. It's in each and every one of my posts. I'm saying that the claim that 4E is somehow "just as good" at roleplaying as any other system on the market is misguided, ill-informed, and provably wrong. That doesn't stop it being a great game, it's just a different game to what you seem to think it is.
Even - even - were it "just as good" - well, that doesn't cut it. That doesn't answer the question of why we're playing 4E rather than something else. (If nothing else, something cheaper.) And the answer to that is combat. Combat is what 4E does well; it's what it does better than the competition, and the only rational conclusion is that if you've chosen 4E in the full knowledge of the existence of other games you've come to beat the crap out of some orcs with a +3 axe.
Read it again. Take it slowly and sound out the letters. "H" makes a "hu" noise, like in "horses".
So it going to be on of those discussions...
The assumptions I make on Eleven Foot Pole have very little to do with the way I run my group; that particular party are now doing a very heavily modified Pyramid of Shadows focused largely on character stories and backgrounds; I run another group that's pure hack and slash, and I'm a player in a third game that's almost entirely RP.
Eleven Foot Pole comes from the point of view that a module costs you money, and for that money one is entitled to expect a top-notch product that presents a coherent story, balanced encounters, and a lot of inspiration for GMs. The H-series modules don't meet that standard, and while I'm quite happy to concede that you can work them over in a number of ways to fix them, it's worth stopping to look at why they're so bad in the first place, how the module writers fell into the traps they obviously have, and how Wizards let such sub-par product get through an ostensibly rigorous QA process.
The point is to learn from the mistakes.
Well if they are such an inferior product, as you claim them to be, why do they continue to sell for?
I have yet to see a game company say that their module will fit perfectly with every gaming group who buys it.
even the DMG says to change something if it is not to your liking, according to you that makes the price of the books worthless. So just how does a company make a product that will be 'perfect' for every style of play out there?
I fail to see the design critique of your last blog, I see wise-cracks and little more
QFT. I stand by that. 4E is a great game; it's a terrible roleplaying game.
Why don't you enlighten us who have no idea what a 'true' roleplaying game is. Why don't you explain to us what rules are needed for roleplaying?
Gone to great lengths, many times, to say I'm not disparaging 4E. I love 4E. It's in each and every one of my posts. I'm saying that the claim that 4E is somehow "just as good" at roleplaying as any other system on the market is misguided, ill-informed, and provably wrong. That doesn't stop it being a great game, it's just a different game to what you seem to think it is.
Even - even - were it "just as good" - well, that doesn't cut it. That doesn't answer the question of why we're playing 4E rather than something else. (If nothing else, something cheaper.) And the answer to that is combat.
Let's see.
You don't like the skill challenge rules
The game has no 'rules' for roleplaying
The modules are crap
But no you are not disparaging 4e, you love the combat mechanic...
Combat is what 4E does well; it's what it does better than the competition, and the only rational conclusion is that if you've chosen 4E in the full knowledge of the existence of other games you've come to beat the crap out of some orcs with a +3 axe.
Wha?
So two of the three groups you play with are irrational than?
Well if they are such an inferior product, as you claim them to be, why do they continue to sell for?
Because (a) marketing is more important than quality and (b) you're an excellent example of the fact that people who've never tried anything except rotten meat don't understand why they shouldn't pay top dollar for it.
I fail to see the design critique of your last blog, I see wise-cracks and little more.
Wise-cracks? Hey, thanks for the compliment! It's nice to make people laugh from time to time; you'd understand that, I'm sure.
Why don't you enlighten us who have no idea what a 'true' roleplaying game is. Why don't you explain to us what rules are needed for roleplaying?
It's not a question of what rules are needed. It's the fact that if you simply don't have any rules for roleplaying you can't claim to be a roleplaying game. You're, at best, a set of conflict resolution rules to include in your existing roleplaying game.
But - despite the fact your earlier post suggests you'd already seen me rattle off this list - I'll cite 7th Sea, Legend of the Five Rings, World of Darkness, Primetime Adventures and Burning Wheel as games that had explicit mechanical support for roleplaying that actually worked. That's just my personal experience. Go give them a shot, I think you'll have a blast.
You don't like the skill challenge rules
The game has no 'rules' for roleplaying
The modules are crap
But no you are not disparaging 4e, you love the combat mechanic...
And the treasure mechanic! Let's not forget the treasure mechanic!
Saying Monopoly doesn't have a detailed combat mechanic isn't disparaging Monopoly. It's a simple fact. Monopoly doesn't. It didn't intend to have one. It wouldn't benefit from one. That's the case here. 4E has taken a certain niche of the market and it's quite happy there. It's looking at you and saying, "Hey man, don't harsh my buzz."
I don't know why it's saying that; I just like using hilarious retro lingo. But the point stands that a system can be excellent by being focused; 4E is a focused system, and it benefits from it. It's gotten back to being about Dungeons and about Dragons and has stopped caring so much about Accounting, Politicking and Crafting.
So two of the three groups you play with are irrational than?
There are words on my screen but I don't think they have any connection to what was going on in your head when you typed them.
Let's get clear; are you intending to establish that:
(a) D&D 4E is average or better at mechanically supporting roleplaying, or
(b) I personally am in someway deceitful, unintelligent or substandard?
Because originally I thought it was (a) and now I'm not so sure; it might help the argument if we could focus.
Just to add to the pile, DnD 4e has an extremely good, detailed combat system. That by itself isnt a reason why it must also be good for roleplaying purposes, but also not why it must be bad.
These things are not connected.
I believe the core issue with these discussions coming up time and again on these boards for over a year now is actually not a flaw in the game system, its because in my experience, no two roleplayers can really agree whats REAL roleplaying, how to roleplay right, and whats needed. Its a phenomenon not limited to Pen+Paper roleplay either. Any LARP, any MMORPG you got the same.
In regards to the fight-free dungeon, it can work. It has worked for me, an entire dungeon with only ONE fight, which was between the players when one of them got charmed by the statue of a sphinx and turned on his comrades.
The difficulty is that DnD Combat is very exciting, so you have to be able to really match this sort of action and excitement with your traps, tasks, ideas, situations. Its not as easy as replacing every fight with a skill challenge or a trap.
What worked great for me was trying to split up these situations into individual rolls. Jumping from stepping stone to stepping stone over a sea of acid is fine, but its not enough to really make it work as replacement for a fight.
So instead, I draw the acid lake, and I put all sorts of stepping stones, or low-hanging parts of ceiling where you can anchor a rope (or not?), and I let my players plot their route. Different stones have different difficulty, some can be seen from a distance as being slippery, some dont look like they can take a lot of weight and so on.
I basically let them not just roll 3 times, but decide how to proceed ,what to roll, how often to roll etc. They are engaged, they get to decide and not just "follow the rails".
Also, dice-less challenges work well too. Read them Riddles if you are good at making these, have them solve puzzles or give them information they have to figure out, and not just roll an Arcana check. Dont engage the dice, engage the player brains. If you are good at description or drawing, you can even try and set up a physics puzzle, where they have to get enough weight on a trigger plate or similar stuff.
Also, remember that fighting usually means a minor or major reward in terms of loot or exp afterwards. Consider your obstacles, traps, riddles, puzzles and skill challenges as fights, and give logical rewards. Why give them the golden statue worth 500 gp at the end in the big, inflationary treasure chest, if they can see it in the skeletal fingers of a dead adventurer halfway through, and feel rewarded for avoiding the trap who killed their poor predecessor? They wont turn around leaving anyway, so they might as well get it now, so they need to lug it around, and hell, maybe even decide to ditch it to lose weight at a shaky-looking rope bridge further on!
Also, fight-free doesnt have to mean they know it. Even if there is no fight, if the DANGER seems real, they ll maybe not even notice that in effect they never had to fight, but only overcome obstacles. Have enemy patrols miss them closely, describe sounds of creatures, traces of them, maybe descibe an utterly out-of-place item with no particular purpose, like a pink wedding gown cut for a halfling being pinned to a wall or something: Keep their minds running in circles.
At the end, I had a situation where the entire dungeon crawl consisted of stealthing through ,avoiding traps, overcoming obstacles, dodging patrols, and not a single fight, but my players loved it, and considered it a job well-done that they didnt get caught. Not getting into a fight can become a goal all by itself then.
No it's a question of what rules are needed in order to roleplay.
What rules do these games you mention have that make them into true roleplaying games?
I got my WoD books on my shelf. Can you quote me page numbers, sections, anything that will explain to me what 'rules' are needed in order to roleplay?
And the treasure mechanic! Let's not forget the treasure mechanic!
I'll agree with you here, the treasure concept is inept.
Oh no it's this:
"Combat is what 4E does well; it's what it does better than the competition, and the only rational conclusion is that if you've chosen 4E in the full knowledge of the existence of other games you've come to beat the crap out of some orcs with a +3 axe."
But according to you
"that particular party are now doing a very heavily modified Pyramid of Shadows focused largely on character stories and backgrounds;"
"and I'm a player in a third game that's almost entirely RP."
Two out of the three groups you play with are playing the game irrationally wrong(according to you)
You ask "what rules are needed to roleplay?" and I say, "None, you can roleplay perfectly fine without rules." I run a number of games that way.
The relevant questions are "What rules inhibit roleplaying, and does 4E have any?", "What rules encourage and support roleplaying, and does 4E have any?" and "Do other systems support and encourage roleplaying better than 4E?"
The argument I'm putting in this thread is that 4E's support for roleplaying and non-combat conflict is sub-par, and the quality of the game as a whole is balanced out by the excellence of its combat system. If you take away the combat system, the balance tips very much against 4E and you'd be better served by playing a different system.
What rules do these games you mention have that make them into true roleplaying games?
This argument keeps making me a 7th Sea evangelist, because it has the simplest and most easy to understand example.
7th Sea has a thing called "drama dice". Drama dice are tokens accrued by players and they can be spent for mechanical effect (eg add an extra die to a die roll, wake up when you're unconscious, gain some extra XP at the end of a session). The only way to get a drama die is through good roleplaying. When you do something that is above and beyond the call of awesome, or is excellent roleplaying, or that enables someone else's fun, you get a drama die. The DM can give them out, or also your fellow players can call out that you deserve one for your actions.
Drama dice are neat at the high end of play where everyone's an experienced roleplayer, but where they're really excellent is at the low end where you have new players, shy players, players who aren't confident or who feel like they're "not good at roleplaying". The DM sees one of these players make an effort, he gives them a drama die. It's a concrete way of saying, "I see that you're trying there, and we all think it's awesome, keep it up." As a result the rate of engagement and immersion among new players in 7th Sea is vastly higher than in D&D; you get a much higher level of characterisation and involvement straight off the bat with even the shyest players because you establish this clear connection between roleplaying and rewards.
It's a mechanic that supports and encourages roleplaying, and I'm suggesting it's the kind of thing that 4th Edition doesn't have.
"Combat is what 4E does well; it's what it does better than the competition, and the only rational conclusion is that if you've chosen 4E in the full knowledge of the existence of other games you've come to beat the crap out of some orcs with a +3 axe."
But according to you
"that particular party are now doing a very heavily modified Pyramid of Shadows focused largely on character stories and backgrounds;"
"and I'm a player in a third game that's almost entirely RP."
Yes, we roleplay in D&D. I've never suggested you can't, or that you shouldn't. In fact, the opposite - you absolutely should, it makes the game exponentially better. But all three games have combat; they're guaranteed at least one fight per session. We're playing because we'd like our roleplaying to happen in the context of braining some goblins with an axe. Because - and again, listen carefully to the argument I'm making - combat is the only thing D&D does better than the competition. A D&D game without combat is a sub-par game; you could run the same game under another system and find the game easier to run and more rewarding.
Don't get the threads I'm in confused; I'm running different arguments in each of them. The argument here is that there is no point in a D&D game without combat, because that theoretical game would be better handled under almost any other system.
4e does extremely well at non-combat, unless some people need 'rules' on how to use their imagination.
You have a great concept I say go for it. Pacing will be the key to it.
I had done something similar, where the group wnet through this room full of mirrors, which 'cloned' them, after that every 'situation' that came up afterwards they had to roll to see which 'persona' was there(the clones were complete opposites of the actual players) It was immense fun for everyone.
Wow, thats a darn creative idea... very old school if I don't say.
Wow, thats a darn creative idea... very old school if I don't say.
The players, after an initial rant, really got into it and hammed up the whole session. It has been the most pleasing session I have run in the past couple of years.
I'm not dodging the question, I'm telling you that you're putting a position that I've never claimed to make. You ask "what rules are needed to roleplay?" and I say, "None, you can roleplay perfectly fine without rules." I run a number of games that way.
Glad we agree no rules are needed to roleplay
The argument I'm putting in this thread is that 4E's support for roleplaying and non-combat conflict is sub-par, and the quality of the game as a whole is balanced out by the excellence of its combat system. If you take away the combat system, the balance tips very much against 4E and you'd be better served by playing a different system.
This argument keeps making me a 7th Sea evangelist, because it has the simplest and most easy to understand example.
7th Sea has a thing called "drama dice". Drama dice are tokens accrued by players and they can be spent for mechanical effect (eg add an extra die to a die roll, wake up when you're unconscious, gain some extra XP at the end of a session). The only way to get a drama die is through good roleplaying. When you do something that is above and beyond the call of awesome, or is excellent roleplaying, or that enables someone else's fun, you get a drama die. The DM can give them out, or also your fellow players can call out that you deserve one for your actions.
Drama dice are neat at the high end of play where everyone's an experienced roleplayer, but where they're really excellent is at the low end where you have new players, shy players, players who aren't confident or who feel like they're "not good at roleplaying". The DM sees one of these players make an effort, he gives them a drama die. It's a concrete way of saying, "I see that you're trying there, and we all think it's awesome, keep it up." As a result the rate of engagement and immersion among new players in 7th Sea is vastly higher than in D&D; you get a much higher level of characterisation and involvement straight off the bat with even the shyest players because you establish this clear connection between roleplaying and rewards.
It's a mechanic that supports and encourages roleplaying, and I'm suggesting it's the kind of thing that 4th Edition doesn't have.
Bribery as roleplaying incentive, yeah that's true roleplaying. How does the book put it? "if he pauses for a moment before leaping out the window to give the princess a goodbye kiss, you'll get a drama die" or if you do some wity banter while fighting the bad guy you get a drama die. Yeah that really makes for quality roleplaying. A couple one liners and a tip of my hat to the damsel and I just got 2-5 drama die, which I then get to boost my others skill checks or wowsers get even more XP.
It's unfortunate that you think incentive based mechanics are true roleplaying.
I am truly grateful that 4eD&D learned that roleplay is it's own rewards and by giving a mechanic to roleplay only cheapens the joy of the act.
Bribery as roleplaying incentive, yeah that's true roleplaying.
Are you against mechanical rewards here as a whole, or is it just for roleplaying? You're not down with the concept of roleplaying XP or a well-phrased argument increasing the reward the villagers are willing to pay?
I mean, do you also suggest, "Killing goblins is its own reward, and looting their bodies for treasure only cheapens the act?" Is "levelling up" prostituting the purity of your perfect gaming experience?
How does the book put it? "if he pauses for a moment before leaping out the window to give the princess a goodbye kiss, you'll get a drama die" or if you do some wity banter while fighting the bad guy you get a drama die. Yeah that really makes for quality roleplaying. A couple one liners and a tip of my hat to the damsel and I just got 2-5 drama die, which I then get to boost my others skill checks or wowsers get even more XP.
Glad to see you've at least skimmed the book; give the game a try, see whether you enjoy. But your "couple of one liners and a tip of the hat" example suggests you're fighting two named villains and saving a princess in one session, and accruing all the dramatic moments onto a single character, which I'm not sure is a good understanding of the concepts of "teamwork", "drama" or "pacing".
In any case, if a player makes genuinely witty banter while fighting the scarred swordsman who killed his father, I honestly don't care whether he's doing it for the fun or for the drama dice - that's a win either way, and miles better than his character staying silent while the player declares, "I attack with my sword" for the fifth round in a row.
It's unfortunate that you think incentive based mechanics are true roleplaying.
With due respect to the passion you obviously feel about this, you're putting words in my mouth again; "true roleplaying" was your phrasing from your last post. The only phrasing I've ever used is "mechanics that support and encourage roleplaying", and that's still what I'm talking about.
I'll do the search for "true roleplaying", whatever the hell that means, in another thread. I'm not here to snub one person's roleplaying as less good than another's. Right now what really gets me excited is seeing players who "felt silly speaking in character" or thought they "weren't good roleplayers" getting invested in the game and really getting into the moment, and 7th Sea triggers that change faster and more reliably than D&D because it's explicitly included mechanics for that purpose.
Are you against mechanical rewards here as a whole, or is it just for roleplaying? You're not down with the concept of roleplaying XP or a well-phrased argument increasing the reward the villagers are willing to pay?
I mean, do you also suggest, "Killing goblins is its own reward, and looting their bodies for treasure only cheapens the act?" Is "levelling up" prostituting the purity of your perfect gaming experience?
Are you saying the only way to get any roleplaying is to have a mechanic incentive? You're not down with the concept of roleplaying just to have fun or that you don't need a 'biscuit' in order to roleplay?
Glad to see you've at least skimmed the book; give the game a try, see whether you enjoy. But your "couple of one liners and a tip of the hat" example suggests you're fighting two named villains and saving a princess in one session, and accruing all the dramatic moments onto a single character, which I'm not sure is a good understanding of the concepts of "teamwork", "drama" or "pacing".
In any case, if a player makes genuinely witty banter while fighting the scarred swordsman who killed his father, I honestly don't care whether he's doing it for the fun or for the drama dice - that's a win either way, and miles better than his character staying silent while the player declares, "I attack with my sword" for the fifth round in a row.
Sounds like you groups have issues with roleplaying, if on one hand they get 'into' roleplaying while playing 7th sea, but stay mum when you play D&D.
Perhaps they are only there for the 'biscuits' you hand them.
With due respect to the passion you obviously feel about this, you're putting words in my mouth again; "true roleplaying" was your phrasing from your last post. The only phrasing I've ever used is "mechanics that support and encourage roleplaying", and that's still what I'm talking about.
I'll do the search for "true roleplaying", whatever the hell that means, in another thread. I'm not here to snub one person's roleplaying as less good than another's. Right now what really gets me excited is seeing players who "felt silly speaking in character" or thought they "weren't good roleplayers" getting invested in the game and really getting into the moment, and 7th Sea triggers that change faster and more reliably than D&D because it's explicitly included mechanics for that purpose.
Well lets see what you said about it.
"In the mean time I've been playing a lot of other systems that have been really exploring what it means to be a "roleplaying game""
Sounds like a "real" or "true" roleplaying game(according to you) can only be called that when there are incentives and/or mechanical advantages and/or rewards for roleplaying.
Are you saying the only way to get any roleplaying is to have a mechanic incentive? You're not down with the concept of roleplaying just to have fun or that you don't need a 'biscuit' in order to roleplay?
I'm saying it's better. For exactly the same reasons that you can roll dice to kill goblins for the fun of it, but it's more fun when you get loot and XP. Rewards are only a bad idea when they're encouraging you to do something you wouldn't enjoy anyway, because then it becomes about the reward and not the process. If the process is enjoyable anyway, rewards enhance and structure it and make it more accessible for newcomers.
So that's what I'm saying - now what are you saying? Are you saying that mechanical rewards are a bad idea generally, or just for roleplaying? And if just for roleplaying, what makes that a special case?
Next to that also - I take it from your general tone that roleplaying is something important to you that you think should happen in D&D. We're in agreement there. So don't you think there's a disparity involved when the two key mechanical rewards - XP and loot - are linked primarily to successful combat, while there's nothing whatsoever attached to good roleplaying? Mechanically speaking, what is the game telling you you should focus your attention on?
Sounds like you groups have issues with roleplaying, if on one hand they get 'into' roleplaying while playing 7th sea, but stay mum when you play D&D.
Look, would you stop putting words in my mouth? I've never claimed "my group" have a problem roleplaying. "My group" in any case is some ten to fifteen regular players over a suite of games and a regular cast of first time players both socially and at conventions. And across that spread of people are excellent roleplayers who can enrich any game with their mere presence, and competent roleplayers, and people who are by nature shy, not confident, or not gifted in the English language. The good roleplayers will be at home whatever we play; we can get out chess and they'll bring it to life as a dramatic war of opposed states. But not everyone is a good roleplayer, not everyone is suited to being a good roleplayer, and good roleplayers don't start out born with the skill. I'd like to be able to include anyone in my game, and that's where a little mechanical encouragement and support for roleplaying goes a really long way.
But more to the point - look, I could say, "Yes, my group are all brain damaged sloths," and you wouldn't have gotten anywhere. The argument I'm making isn't anecdotal, it's based on internally sound arguments. Attacking me isn't ever going to address the ideas that D&D's non-combat and roleplaying mechanics are sub-par, either through their presence or absence, and that if you're not making use of 4th Edition's excellent combat mechanics you're left with a sub-par product.
"In the mean time I've been playing a lot of other systems that have been really exploring what it means to be a "roleplaying game""
Sounds like a "real" or "true" roleplaying game(according to you) can only be called that when there are incentives and/or mechanical advantages and/or rewards for roleplaying.
No, no, look, you're shifting ground. A minute ago you were talking about "true roleplaying", and now you're saying, "Oh, sorry, I meant to say 'real roleplaying game'." And yes, "real roleplaying game" is a phrase I stand by; a real roleplaying game is one where the roleplaying is enabled and supported by the game itself rather than merely not being prohibited by the game.
If our standard in defining roleplaying games is "this game does not prevent me roleplaying" then we're including checkers, snakes and ladders and football as potential future Ennie Award winners.
The standard must be higher and it must surely start with the existence of mechanical support, structure or encouragement of roleplaying.
What worked great for me was trying to split up these situations into individual rolls. Jumping from stepping stone to stepping stone over a sea of acid is fine, but its not enough to really make it work as replacement for a fight.
So instead, I draw the acid lake, and I put all sorts of stepping stones, or low-hanging parts of ceiling where you can anchor a rope (or not?), and I let my players plot their route. Different stones have different difficulty, some can be seen from a distance as being slippery, some dont look like they can take a lot of weight and so on.
I basically let them not just roll 3 times, but decide how to proceed ,what to roll, how often to roll etc. They are engaged, they get to decide and not just "follow the rails".
This is an excellent idea.
The skill challenge system provokes mixed feelings in me. Ten out of ten for trying; about two out of ten for execution. The idea of solving a problem with multiple skills and so on is good. It's some attempt at making non-combat challenges as complicated as combat. But when it comes down to it, the kind of combat it comes down to is the stand there and everyone takes it in turn to hit it slugfest. There's some attempt in published products to vary it a bit by including skills that don't directly score successes, but which make subsequent rolls easier. It's still a bit clunky.
Linking the challenge to a set of options that require them to engage with the environment as well as just make rolls, as Asche is suggesting, stops it from just being a slugfest.
Also, dice-less challenges work well too. Read them Riddles if you are good at making these, have them solve puzzles or give them information they have to figure out, and not just roll an Arcana check. Dont engage the dice, engage the player brains. If you are good at description or drawing, you can even try and set up a physics puzzle, where they have to get enough weight on a trigger plate or similar stuff.
I'm less keen on these ideas. These kinds of completely diceless tasks have always felt slightly arbitrary. It's harder to keep in mind that this is not only challenge that the DM is setting the players but also a challenge that the characters are encountering in the world.
And they also open themselves to being role-playing counterproductive. By that I mean the familiar remarks that you shouldn't penalize the person who's playing a half-orc barbarian for playing themselves as not too bright; and someone who's playing an eladrin scholar or a half-elf conman should be given mechanical help in playing up to their character's skill set.
Someone pointed out to me on another thread, quite validly, that the campaign setting books providing area-specific backgrounds are a very low level example of "mechanics that support or structure roleplaying". It's not a very good mechanic and it doesn't encourage a lot of roleplaying but it meets the standard without being a reward.
Taking it a step up, indie game The Valedictorian's Death uses a system where points move from actions to reactions to consequences, providing a system that mechanically structures roleplaying without being a system of benefits and rewards.
I have re-opened this thread for now due to the editing being done. However, the VCL can still have the thread closed if he wishes.
Please do NOT turn this thread into a flame war or edition war. Please also remember to get up and walk away when you feel the need to post a flame or baiting comment. It's fine to disagree and debate. That's why forums are here, but DO NOT attack other posters.
Thank you,
Chaos
Online Response Crew
Okay, for the OP yes, it can be done and it can be fun. Traps/hazards now provide XP, as does skill challanges. I think that's the "mechanic" people are looking for that "supports" roleplaying.
In all honesty though, no previous edition did have any such support. Craft/profession skill rolls from 3e may have provided info like how much money you could earn, but is that really "roleplaying"? I can't find any rules from previous editions that says "Reward the players XP for staying in character."
In all honesty though, no previous edition did have any such support. Craft/profession skill rolls from 3e may have provided info like how much money you could earn, but is that really "roleplaying"? I can't find any rules from previous editions that says "Reward the players XP for staying in character."
Agreed. My arguments apply to previous editions, except they don't have the "except for the excellent combat mechanic" rider. 1E/AD&D were recommendable because the rest of the marketplace at that time had many of the same problems; pretty much everything out was a mechanically awkward simulationist game. 1E/AD&D were big fish in what was then a very small pond.
3.0/3.5 were recommendable only in as much as they were "like AD&D, with many of the obvious problems fixed and a lot more character options". The combat was at best on a par with competitors like White Wolf, with none of the depth, storytelling or roleplaying support - and indeed, that's the era where you see White Wolf start to eat into Wizards' market share.
4E has this excellent combat system that I highly recommend, but the rest of the game is as shallow as - or shallower than - any previous edition. When you've got a range of competitors who've staked out this area of gamespace as the thing they do well - and they've got sales figures, awards, and critical acclaim to suggest they do, in fact, do it well - if you're not using 4E's fantastic combat mechanics, why wouldn't you go to a game that specialises in the kind of non-combat campaign you're trying to run?
The 7th-Sea idea is interesting, but it's basically just a purely Subjective Mechanical Bonus System. It would be like ending every Combat in DnD with the DM saying, "Bobby, I think you did more than anyone else, so here's some extra loot and XP." That type of thing could turn real personal, real fast, and the only counter-argument is "Any Good DM." Yuck.
The Rules are there to be impartial. Sure, the DM has a large influence overall, but when you want to see how much of a Reward you're going to get for putting effort into something, that's where the Rules come in. How much damage did I do? How much XP did I get? Does he make his Save? The Rules tell you the answers to questions like these so that you have nobody to place the blame on if you fail. Putting any of it on the DM just feels like a guaranteed way to discourage Roleplay, because you're not thinking In-Character when you're yelling at Jim the DM that he's short-selling you after your heroic speech to the King.
Anyways, just my opinion on the subject.
My only annoyance is that you think 4E shallower than previous Editions; I just can't see that, really. 3.5 had no Skill Challenges, no Page 42, and was downright punishing to anyone trying to do anything not completely covered by the Rules.
Well, my opinion on that only goes as high as a personal assessment; I'm not going to die in a ditch over that, and it's not particularly important to my argument. For reference,though what I had in mind was that previous editions had wide ranges of craft skills, specific rules around acquiring castles and armies and followers, a wider range of items with non-combat effects and a lot more information about non-combat interactions with monsters. I'm not sure that any of that made any of them a better game but it's hard to say that there wasn't a lot more information available under previous editions about creating and handling non-combat situations.
The 7th-Sea idea is interesting, but it's basically just a purely Subjective Mechanical Bonus System. It would be like ending every Combat in DnD with the DM saying, "Bobby, I think you did more than anyone else, so here's some extra loot and XP." That type of thing could turn real personal, real fast, and the only counter-argument is "Any Good DM." Yuck.
If I remember correctly previous editions used to specifically recommend inidivual XP awards for roleplaying. I don't think 4E does contain that recommendation and if it did it would sit poorly with 4E's balance, which requires PCs to stay at more or less the same level as each other.
That's a mechanic, certainly, but not a wonderful one. The two things that make the 7th Sea system superior are that (1) drama dice are interactive - they must be spent to achieve specific effects, many of which are plot buy-in, giving the player a chance to mechanically direct the adventure towards kinds of gameplay they enjoy, and (2) there are certain specific categories of activity that may prompt a drama die, along with a more overarching DM discretion - the specific categories allow players to say, "I think that was worth a drama die," when they do something cool because they know it's the type of thing that might trigger the reward.
Of course there's a high level of DM arbitration; I think we can all agree that short of turning D&D into a computer game there's no real way of packing a good DM into the box. Bad DMing can undermine every rule and good DMing can create gold from dross, but good mechanics help ensure that players and DMs have the same expectations, provide encouragement and structure to new DMs, and help remind even the best DMs to give players regular positive reinforcement.
The Rules are there to be impartial. [...] Putting any of it on the DM just feels like a guaranteed way to discourage Roleplay, because you're not thinking In-Character when you're yelling at Jim the DM that he's short-selling you after your heroic speech to the King.
There's a difference between bad rules, and misunderstood rules. The player who's yelling at the DM is having a comprehension failure; he doesn't understand the concept, "In the DM's absolute discretion." The player doesn't get to argue the toss; he plays the game, and if at the end of the game he didn't have fun he doesn't come back to the next one. The fact that he didn't understand the rule doesn't make it a bad rule, although it might make it a badly explained one. The DM's responsibility is to make the game fun enough that the players come back,and there's no limitation on the tools he can use to achieve that.
DM discretionary rewards are a DM discretion, exactly like the DM's discretion to set encounter difficulty, treasure, or the nature and content of quests and adventures. If your DM has bad judgement, that's something that no rule can save you from.
The 7th Sea mechanic expressly decides, "We're going to assume the DM is competent, because otherwise your game has larger problems than how often you get drama dice."
Anyways, just my opinion on the subject.
Read, thought about, and appreciated. And you make good points worth making even if I don't wholly agree.
I had done something similar, where the group wnet through this room full of mirrors, which 'cloned' them, after that every 'situation' that came up afterwards they had to roll to see which 'persona' was there(the clones were complete opposites of the actual players) It was immense fun for everyone.
I'm interested. Could you elaborate?
I'm interested. Could you elaborate?
Sure.
I should have said complete opposites in personality.
Set up was the group going to The Hedge Maze of Drach. Which was accessed only through this Gothic looking building, once inside this building they were confronted with dozens, maybe hundreds of mirrors of all shapes and sizes. I had 4 doors on the north side leading into the maze, but each door was slightly 'off' time-wise (15sec-2minutes) that was done to keep players guessing.
Once in, the maze had the whole ground fog effect going on. Whenever there was a situation, either combat or non, they would roll to see which 'persona' was there.
I did this for a couple reasons
1. The group was getting complacent in the gaming(me included). It was a 6pm-12am game and after awhile that kinda went to a 7ish-10:30ish game
2. The group had been playing together for a while(multiple games) and the players were playing the same thing constantly and I wanted to see something fresh from them.
3. Wanted some of the others to shine for a bit(it was 3.5) and there is nothing funnier then watching a wizard charge into combat swinging his staff with murder in his eyes.
At the exit of the maze, they had to fight "themselves". It was the first time in a long while they were actually working together as a group.
Atmosphere helped a lot with this I tailored what each saw in the mirrors to each player, like the quiet, go with the flow wizard kept thinking he was seeing his reflection wink at him.
It took the first situation for 5 of them to get on board, the hold out was the one who I didn't expect to be the hold out.
Well, my opinion on that only goes as high as a personal assessment; I'm not going to die in a ditch over that, and it's not particularly important to my argument. For reference,though what I had in mind was that previous editions had wide ranges of craft skills, specific rules around acquiring castles and armies and followers, a wider range of items with non-combat effects and a lot more information about non-combat interactions with monsters. I'm not sure that any of that made any of them a better game but it's hard to say that there wasn't a lot more information available under previous editions about creating and handling non-combat situations.
Ohhh, the missing stuff I hope they bring back...yeah, that's pretty undeniable right there. They still have a lot of the stuff I thought was pretty useful for Out-of-Combat scenarios, but introducing a good deal more would go miles towards (hopefully) changing the stereotypes inherent with 4E. :S
If I remember correctly previous editions used to specifically recommend inidivual XP awards for roleplaying. I don't think 4E does contain that recommendation and if it did it would sit poorly with 4E's balance, which requires PCs to stay at more or less the same level as each other.
They basically just use the Rules for Skill Challenges to show that Roleplaying should come with XP as a reward.
Previous Editions did, indeed, make it pretty arbitrary, but it still seemed to work out fairly well over-all, so that's a good point.
The 7th Sea mechanic expressly decides, "We're going to assume the DM is competent, because otherwise your game has larger problems than how often you get drama dice."
Ah, they sell the Truth with their Rules-set, huh? An excellent approach for such a System. I like how it sounds already.
Read, thought about, and appreciated. And you make good points worth making even if I don't wholly agree.
Thanks much, and right back at ya'.
Well, my opinion on that only goes as high as a personal assessment; I'm not going to die in a ditch over that, and it's not particularly important to my argument. For reference,though what I had in mind was that previous editions had wide ranges of craft skills, specific rules around acquiring castles and armies and followers, a wider range of items with non-combat effects and a lot more information about non-combat interactions with monsters. I'm not sure that any of that made any of them a better game but it's hard to say that there wasn't a lot more information available under previous editions about creating and handling non-combat situations.ShowIf I remember correctly previous editions used to specifically recommend inidivual XP awards for roleplaying. I don't think 4E does contain that recommendation and if it did it would sit poorly with 4E's balance, which requires PCs to stay at more or less the same level as each other.
That's a mechanic, certainly, but not a wonderful one. The two things that make the 7th Sea system superior are that (1) drama dice are interactive - they must be spent to achieve specific effects, many of which are plot buy-in, giving the player a chance to mechanically direct the adventure towards kinds of gameplay they enjoy, and (2) there are certain specific categories of activity that may prompt a drama die, along with a more overarching DM discretion - the specific categories allow players to say, "I think that was worth a drama die," when they do something cool because they know it's the type of thing that might trigger the reward.
Of course there's a high level of DM arbitration; I think we can all agree that short of turning D&D into a computer game there's no real way of packing a good DM into the box. Bad DMing can undermine every rule and good DMing can create gold from dross, but good mechanics help ensure that players and DMs have the same expectations, provide encouragement and structure to new DMs, and help remind even the best DMs to give players regular positive reinforcement.
There's a difference between bad rules, and misunderstood rules. The player who's yelling at the DM is having a comprehension failure; he doesn't understand the concept, "In the DM's absolute discretion." The player doesn't get to argue the toss; he plays the game, and if at the end of the game he didn't have fun he doesn't come back to the next one. The fact that he didn't understand the rule doesn't make it a bad rule, although it might make it a badly explained one. The DM's responsibility is to make the game fun enough that the players come back,and there's no limitation on the tools he can use to achieve that.
DM discretionary rewards are a DM discretion, exactly like the DM's discretion to set encounter difficulty, treasure, or the nature and content of quests and adventures. If your DM has bad judgement, that's something that no rule can save you from.
The 7th Sea mechanic expressly decides, "We're going to assume the DM is competent, because otherwise your game has larger problems than how often you get drama dice."
Read, thought about, and appreciated. And you make good points worth making even if I don't wholly agree.
This is why I cannot fathom why people say there is no non-combat mechanics in 4e. It is right there for everyone to read.
I don't think I've said 4E has no non-combat mechanics (although I can get pretty hyperbolic so it's possible). I've said that 4E's non-combat mechanics are inferior to many other systems, and that it's the 4E combat system that balances the scales and makes 4E a product worth buying. The natural extension of that is that a 4E game without the combat is an inferior game, and the same game run under a different system would be more enjoyable.
Looking specifically at skill challenges, they suffer from several key problems:
(1) The 4E skill set is almost entirely focused on skills relevant to the process of crossing the wilderness and delving into dungeons. It's very poor at handling (say) a murder mystery because you've got a very small selection of skills to handle a wide range of situations - even if you're being creative and specifically building your encounters to D&D's skillset you get to a point where it's just "roll another d20 and see if it's over 10".
(2) 4E skills scale badly; at paragon tier the gap between "specialised" and "un-specialised" in skills is up to 15 points. A task that's barely possible for an untrained character is trivial for a specialised one, and something that challenges a specialised character requires natural 20s for the untrained. That makes building challenges of appropriate difficulty at the paragon tier and above tremendously challenging and requires tailoring them to the specific skills your party has available.
(3) There's no character flavour in skills; despite classes getting access to different "class" skills, one character's skillset looks very much like another's and absent combat there's no real sense of classes being mechanically different. Also there's no mechanical differentiation of roles or styles; you could have a skilled orator, a sexy seductress and a charismatic fighter and they're all just rolling 1d20 and adding their diplomacy bonus when they speak, with the result of a good roll being a success in the skill challenge in every case.
I could go on, but what I'm saying is the 4E non-combat mechanics certainly exist, but they're shallow and unrewarding. What fun you get from them is largely determined by your roleplaying, which, as everyone's already pointed out, you can do just as well in any system. So why not either (a) shift to a system that couples engaging and well-designed mechanics to that roleplaying, or (b) drop the mechanics entirely and run systemless? I mean, either the mechanics matter, in which case you'll benefit from good ones, or they don't, in which case stop paying money for them.
Looking specifically at skill challenges, they suffer from several key problems:
Something that I forgot to say before but I will mention now.
4e is designed(imo) around the group. Everything they try to do rules and mechanics-wise is based upon the group. That is something (imo) a number of games have forgotten. You get a lot of individual mechanics, but very little group mechanics, yet the game is played as a group.
Lets see if I can throw some counter arguments;
(1) For your murder mystery concept, I don't see a skill that cannot be used for it. Some like arcana, dungeoneering, religion, endurance are completely situational, based purely upon what type of murder mystery is being played out. No matter what game set is being played does it not ultimately come down to throw your skill check out there and hope for the best?
(2) Skill Challenges are based on the group. Doesn't matter if one player has a really awesome skill check. It is a group effort not an individual one.
(3) I fail to see how in one game there is no character flavor in skills, but in another there is. That doesn't make any sense to me. There should be no difference(mechanically) between characters trying to persuade(diplomacy) or lie to(bluff) someone, how they do it is flavor whether as a skilled orator, sexy seductress, or charismatic leader. Adding more and more skills to do ultimately 2 different things(persuade or lie) is adding needless minutia that really only adds a level of detail to show the players just how bad they are and not how good. Personally I think your dislike of the skill challenge is coloring your perceptions.
I do not see where the skill challenge mechanic is shallow and unrewarding. I have run them as "hey this is a skill challenge roll dice to see what happens" all the way over to not saying it's a skill challenge and roleplaying the whole thing out with no dice involved(the two groups had very different playstyles). To me that is what makes for a rewarding mechanic. A mechanic that is able to morph itself into whatever you need it to do and it involves the whole group. I have never been a fan of watching one person hog the playtime while he is buying/selling stuff or talking to the important NPC. We are supposed to be a group playing together.
(1) For your murder mystery concept, I don't see a skill that cannot be used for it. Some like arcana, dungeoneering, religion, endurance are completely situational, based purely upon what type of murder mystery is being played out. No matter what game set is being played does it not ultimately come down to throw your skill check out there and hope for the best?
I think I phrased my murder mystery example badly. What I'm saying is that because there's only a handful of skills there's no room for difference in mechanical approach. If you examine the wounds on the body, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal. If you want to deduce something from blood splatters, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal. If you want to ask what poisons might be involved, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal, or maybe your Nature.
Someone whose character concept might only have envisaged learning how to bandage battlefield wounds by default becomes equally competent at a wide range of surgical, pathological and forensic disciplines. That's a great outcome when you're dungeon delving and have a limited range of situations you're going to encounter but not so wonderful if you're doing something outside the dungeon.
(2) Skill Challenges are based on the group. Doesn't matter if one player has a really awesome skill check. It is a group effort not an individual one.
Well, see, that's a problem in itself. If you're asking everyone to roll on the same skill you're punishing players for not being generalists - which is something 4th Edition in every other mechanic discourages you from doing. If you're asking people to roll different skills then they're all just rolling against their highest skills which leads to ridiculous results like the martial character impressing the king using his Intimidate or Athletics.
(3) I fail to see how in one game there is no character flavor in skills, but in another there is. That doesn't make any sense to me.
Well, a huge part of D&D is about the differences (and strengths and weaknesses) of the various classes, and of the various party roles (defender, striker, etc). That shows up very clearly in combat but there's no follow-through outside combat. You can't (mechanically) tell an Avenger from a Sorceror unless they're fighting.
Compare to Legend of the Five Rings, where there's mechanical differences in non-combat resolutions between the "classes" (read: clans). Say the party wants to obtain a valuable katana from a financially-struggling daimyo. The Unicorn-clan player can Barter* for the katana and obtain it at a favourable price. The Scorpion-clan can Intrigue to blackmail the daimyo into releasing it. The Crane-clan can roll Diplomacy to form an eloquent and convincing argument, and the Crab-clan can use Tactics or Leadership to make a practical argument, showing how the katana will better serve the realm in the hands of an active, competent warrior. (I mean, that's the "default" strong suit of each of those clans, it will vary based on the character you actually make.) Those are all going to be different rolls and they're all going to draw on different aspects of the Advantage, Disadvantage and Background mechanics, as well as all having different standards for possibly earning a Void Point during the exchange.
* Don't have my L5R rules with me, apologies if I've not used the correct names for the skills, but the principle stands.
I think I phrased my murder mystery example badly. What I'm saying is that because there's only a handful of skills there's no room for difference in mechanical approach. If you examine the wounds on the body, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal. If you want to deduce something from blood splatters, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal. If you want to ask what poisons might be involved, it's roll 1d20 and add your Heal, or maybe your Nature.
Someone whose character concept might only have envisaged learning how to bandage battlefield wounds by default becomes equally competent at a wide range of surgical, pathological and forensic disciplines. That's a great outcome when you're dungeon delving and have a limited range of situations you're going to encounter but not so wonderful if you're doing something outside the dungeon.
That is exactly why I like it.
Nothing worse as a player going through a scene just to find out no one in the group has the right skill(s) in order to successfully overcome the problem. They rolled the dice on skills they felt were going to be important, but alas there are 113 skills to choose from and they could only cover 56 of them.
Well, see, that's a problem in itself. If you're asking everyone to roll on the same skill you're punishing players for not being generalists - which is something 4th Edition in every other mechanic discourages you from doing. If you're asking people to roll different skills then they're all just rolling against their highest skills which leads to ridiculous results like the martial character impressing the king using his Intimidate or Athletics.
I'm not getting what you are trying to say here.
It sounds like, you haven't really read the skill challenge mechanic to any depth. You're not supposed to just roll for only one skill or just your highest skills. 4e is a game that glorifies the group not the individual which, for a social game like rpgs are, is awesome.
Well, a huge part of D&D is about the differences (and strengths and weaknesses) of the various classes, and of the various party roles (defender, striker, etc). That shows up very clearly in combat but there's no follow-through outside combat. You can't (mechanically) tell an Avenger from a Sorceror unless they're fighting.
Which is awesome. Strip the characters down to their skivvies and you shouldn't be able to walk up to them, point to each and say warlock, warden, warlord, invoker, ranger.
Compare to Legend of the Five Rings, where there's mechanical differences in non-combat resolutions between the "classes" (read: clans). Say the party wants to obtain a valuable katana from a financially-struggling daimyo. The Unicorn-clan player can Barter* for the katana and obtain it at a favourable price. The Scorpion-clan can Intrigue to blackmail the daimyo into releasing it. The Crane-clan can roll Diplomacy to form an eloquent and convincing argument, and the Crab-clan can use Tactics or Leadership to make a practical argument, showing how the katana will better serve the realm in the hands of an active, competent warrior. (I mean, that's the "default" strong suit of each of those clans, it will vary based on the character you actually make.) Those are all going to be different rolls and they're all going to draw on different aspects of the Advantage, Disadvantage and Background mechanics, as well as all having different standards for possibly earning a Void Point during the exchange.
* Don't have my L5R rules with me, apologies if I've not used the correct names for the skills, but the principle stands.
But they are all using diplomacy. How they use it is colored by their clans 'outlook' and that isn't mechanics that is fluff.
I do find it interesting that for the skill challenge mechanic it's bad for the players to roll just their high skills, but in l5r it's good just to roll high skills.
That is exactly why I like it. (and more)
Okay. I think we've come down to:
* I say 4E non-combat is weak because it produces unintended competencies, characters are mechanically interchangeable, and the system relies entirely on fluff to generate fun rather than creating the fun through both mechanics and storytelling.
* You say those are the specific reasons you like 4E non-combat.
I can't understand your position, but I can respect that it's valid and honestly held.
I'd make the argument that the faults I've pointed out are objectively bad game design, and that if you enjoy them despite having in-depth experience with the alternatives you're in a very small and specialised minority.
You'd presumably respond by suggesting that you're in fact a member of a majority or at least a large and valid minority and that what I hold as good game design is not in fact that good.
Given all of that, I'm not sure I can take the discussion any further; we might have to leave it at that and reassess our positions in the future with the benefit of more experience.
Thanks for the discussion Alyri, I've really enjoyed the debate even if I've not agreed with you, and it's always great to talk to someone passionate enough about the hobby that they'll fight over it. See you on the next thread!
I think a lot of your problems with it stem from your liking of the skill based rpg over a level based rpg(for the most part). I also think your are artificially deflating the skills of D&D and artificially inflating the skills of the other games.
The big problem I see with people's displeasure of the skill challenge mechanic boils down to the mechanic being a group activity over an individual one.
But that's just me.
Good discussion though, even if we did get a little snarky at each other.